Shipbucket

Ah thanks. Not that well-versed on the more complex terms of ships.

Hi my comments on the ship (I agree with eltf177 would be the shorter version)

If you have DP 6" you don't need the 5" (and 55cal guns will not be easy to hand load anyway)

The TDS is irrelevant (to thin to work) ditch it.

Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces = bad

'Natural speed' for length: 24.30 kts try to improve to save engine power

I'll see what I can do.

Cleveland, United States Light Cruiser laid down 1938

Displacement:
12,509 t light; 14,023 t standard; 16,600 t normal; 18,662 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(721.78 ft / 721.78 ft) x 59.06 ft x (27.89 / 30.36 ft)
(220.00 m / 220.00 m) x 18.00 m x (8.50 / 9.25 m)

Armament:
12 - 6.00" / 152 mm 55.0 cal guns - 150.00lbs / 68.04kg shells, 300 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1938 Model
2 x 3-gun mounts on centreline, forward evenly spread
1 raised mount
2 x 3-gun mounts on centreline, aft evenly spread
1 raised mount aft
24 - 5.00" / 127 mm 38.0 cal guns - 60.01lbs / 27.22kg shells, 400 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1938 Model
10 x 2-gun mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
2 x 2-gun mounts on centreline, evenly spread
2 double raised mounts
48 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 70.0 cal guns - 3.00lbs / 1.36kg shells, 4,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1938 Model
8 x Quad mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
4 x Quad mounts on centreline, evenly spread
4 double raised mounts
60 - 1.10" / 28.0 mm 75.0 cal guns - 0.99lbs / 0.45kg shells, 4,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1938 Model
8 x Quintuple mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
4 x Quintuple mounts on centreline, evenly spread
4 double raised mounts
80 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm 80.0 cal guns - 0.31lbs / 0.14kg shells, 8,000 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1938 Model
20 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
10 raised mounts
20 x Twin mounts on centreline, evenly spread
20 double raised mounts
Weight of broadside 3,468 lbs / 1,573 kg
Main DC/AS Mortars
6 - 661.39 lbs / 300.00 kg Depth Charges + 40 reloads - 13.582 t total
in Depth charge throwers
2nd DC/AS Mortars
12 - 50.00 lbs / 22.68 kg ahead throwing AS Mortars + 120 reloads - 2.946 t total

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3.00" / 76 mm 469.16 ft / 143.00 m 9.22 ft / 2.81 m
Ends: 2.50" / 64 mm 252.60 ft / 76.99 m 9.22 ft / 2.81 m
Upper: 3.00" / 76 mm 469.16 ft / 143.00 m 8.00 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
3.00" / 76 mm 469.16 ft / 143.00 m 24.23 ft / 7.39 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 50.00 ft / 15.24 m

- Hull void:
3.00" / 76 mm 420.00 ft / 128.02 m 11.00 ft / 3.35 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2.00" / 51 mm 2.00" / 51 mm -
3rd: 2.00" / 51 mm - -
4th: 1.00" / 25 mm - -
5th: 1.00" / 25 mm - -

- Box over machinery & magazines:
3.00" / 76 mm
Forecastle: 2.00" / 51 mm Quarter deck: 2.00" / 51 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 2.00" / 51 mm, Aft 2.00" / 51 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines, plus diesel motors,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 93,990 shp / 70,117 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 15,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,639 tons

Complement:
730 - 950

Cost:
£6.177 million / $24.706 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 921 tons, 5.6 %
- Guns: 897 tons, 5.4 %
- Weapons: 25 tons, 0.1 %
Armour: 4,659 tons, 28.1 %
- Belts: 1,193 tons, 7.2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,262 tons, 7.6 %
- Void: 513 tons, 3.1 %
- Armament: 265 tons, 1.6 %
- Armour Deck: 1,370 tons, 8.3 %
- Conning Towers: 56 tons, 0.3 %
Machinery: 2,574 tons, 15.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,055 tons, 24.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,091 tons, 24.6 %
Miscellaneous weights: 300 tons, 1.8 %
- Hull below water: 50 tons
- On freeboard deck: 50 tons
- Above deck: 200 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
24,311 lbs / 11,027 Kg = 225.1 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 3.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.17
Metacentric height 3.0 ft / 0.9 m
Roll period: 14.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 52 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.80
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.45

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a straight bulbous bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.489 / 0.505
Length to Beam Ratio: 12.22 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 30.25 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 36
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 29.56 ft / 9.01 m, 24.18 ft / 7.37 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 24.18 ft / 7.37 m, 18.80 ft / 5.73 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 18.80 ft / 5.73 m, 18.80 ft / 5.73 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 18.80 ft / 5.73 m, 18.80 ft / 5.73 m
- Average freeboard: 21.11 ft / 6.44 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 87.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 152.8 %
Waterplane Area: 29,228 Square feet or 2,715 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 128 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 112 lbs/sq ft or 548 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.34
- Overall: 1.00
Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

The Cleveland class light cruiser was in reality an answer to the growing problem of the Kingdom of China's growing military power. No one expected China to get itself together and pull another Japan. Another unexpected suprise was the fact that China got European powers kicked out of mainland Indochina and started kicking out the Dutch in Indonesia. The Chinese destroyers and cruisers were top notch and their naval and army capability were more than capable of standing to the European nations.

How it was possible? Many theories are thrown around but it is the most likely that the Chinese were modernizing after the ill-fated Opium Wars, possibly through American connections. In the 1920s the Chinese kickstarted the Indonesia War and fully kicked out the Dutch and capturing the vital ports in the area, effectively disrupting trade. While the US was isolationist, it knew that China would go after American colonies next and started to take steps into bolstering the fleet to fight against the threat. The Cleveland is part of that project of a whole series of vessels that started in the mid-1920s to fight against such a looming threat.

The Cleveland was originally a standard light cruiser, but it was forced to gain much weight when new information about Chinese -and later Italian and French- threats increased the tonnage to about a quarter more tonnage than the original designs called for. However it is wonderous due to it's high natural speed and long range make it a natural escort vessel with destroyer and light cruiser hunting capabilities.

The ship's powerplant is made up of four GE Mk IV 'Super Turbines' and six overcharge-capable oil boilers based off of German designs. The boilers however have caused problems for most funnels in use in the USN so the designers were forced to utilize two funnels instead of the planned one. In addition, the funnels are armed with four 20mm autocannon stations each at the mid-point. In addition to this powerful powerplant, the vessel is designed with a diesel cruise/emergency motor.

The main armament, the dual pupose 6"/55cal Mk16 cannons are extremely capable dual-purpose guns. Designed to fight destroyers, light cruisers, and the new threat of aircraft. Aircraft -first shown in the Austria-Hungarian/Serbia War in the early 19-teens- had evolved in such a way that it threatened naval vessels. No longer ships are the only threat against naval vessels, and new dual-purpose guns were part of the hypothetical counters to the problem of limited tonnage on ships limiting how much anti-air armament was able to be used. The Cleveland's armament is directed by the first purposely designed ship-borne radar mated to fire directors. Firing once every twelve seconds, these guns can quickly wreck anything less than a heavy cruiser with numerous salvos of shells.

The secondary armament of dual-purpose 5"/38cal guns was due to the guns slated to be used of the other calibers being deemed ineffeicient by Naval Ordinance looking ahead to the threats of tomorrow. Quite capable of downing aircraft AND sinking destroyers, these guns fire every five seconds, giving them the ability to fling plenty of anti-air or anti-ship shells down range. Thanks to new technology, the weapon can quickly receive accurate fire-control data.

The Bofors 40mm L70 guns are a recent addition to the Cleveland's arsenal of weapons. As automatic anti-aircraft weaponry, they utilize a modified quad mount originally designed for the 1.1"/75cal anti-aircraft weapon. With help from the radar directed anti-air directors, these weapons show great promise in anti-air work with their decent cyclic rate and range.

The 1.1"/75cal anti-aircraft autocannon is an interesting anti-aircraft weapon system to say the least. Initially part of the general upgrade of anti-aircraft armaments, the weapon has been further enhanced with radar guidance and modern fire control. It's acceptable rate of fire has been -sadly enough- a long time coming from it's initial and problematic history.

The 20mm autocannons are the answer to the Navy's need for a heavier weapon that would replace the M2 .50cal machineguns in use of the time. The biggest problem at the time was aircraft becoming largely immune to M2 fire, but the Swiss provided a solution in their 20mm autocannons. The Oerlikon 20mm autocannon is based upon the Imperial German 20mm Becker design which is well known for being the first autocannon to be fitted to their Zeppelins. The Dutch proved that the only current method of taking down aircraft from vessels is throwing as much shell and lead into the aircraft's direction as possbile. Each station is of a modified twin mount based on the old M2 twin stations. What they lack in fire control, they have in shear numbers and rate of fire even though enemy aircraft have to get in close to use them fully.

The threat of submarines -as the Dutch and Chinese proved during the Indonesia War- is an omnipresent threat, and to counter them, the US Navy decided to give all destroyers and light cruisers at least some sort of anti-sub capability. Both of these weapons are close-range, but are more than capable in sinking subs when used properly.
Basically a little more backstory, a single 6" turret added, and swell the weight by 4600 tons.

Now the problem is you almost have a battlecruiser - a badly underarmed and underprotected battlecruiser. I've still got doubts about getting all that light AA on board and now a 3-inch belt isn't going to be nearly enough. The design works and it most interesting, but I can't see any serious thoughts about building it.

Still, as an intellectual exercise it's a good one...

Re my earlier rushed comments,
Why have 5" guns if you have 6" DP guns ? the 6" are just better in all ways (LA and HA, if you can make them work and if not why build the ship)

Why ASW kit on a 14,000t SD ship ? its not going to change down a Uboat in case of a torpedo. (leave that to >2500t expendable DDs)

Why so much light AA (48 x 40mm and do you really mean L70s rather than L56 ?)/60 x 1.1"/80 x 20mm) its not just the space for the guns but the crew, the 1.1" had a crew of 15 men, the 40mm quad 7+ammo passesr (maybe 8 more ?) so 15, the 20mm maybe 3 men ?
That give you a light AA gun crew of 1860 ! (without any director crew and supervising officers)

The protection is week for such an expensive and large ship (belt/deck)

A TDS 5 feet wide is worthless (well potentially worse than worthless as it might act as wing tanks and help capsize you after a hit)
The power plant doesn't resemble anything OTL (do you mean generators or extra engines ? if so spring sharp will not be siming it properly and you will be slower than the simed 32Kn and thats at the slow limit for a CL IMO)

(personally for a 1938 CL it has lots of post WW2 features that don't add up for the date 6"pd/a straight bulbous bow and large transom stern/etc)

Alright then, thanks for the input. Really it's a Alt-verse idea in the equivelent of WW1 in the era of WW2 after the Serbs and Austria-Hungarians fought it out in a pissing match that didn't spread across Europe like in our timeline (in addition to France being a Constitutional Monarchy after Waterloo thanks to Napoleon winning, China worked on modernizing after the Opium Wars ala the Meji restoration in Japan, etc.)... The boilers were inspired by some Prussian locomotives which have essentially 'supercharged' boilers to squeeze more power out of them. Ah, alrighty then, time to go back to the drawing board (also, 6" DP doesn't have the record of the 5" DP guns from what I understand).

I would be interested in any references about them, what do you mean by supercharged ? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheat ... uperheater ? If so all 1930s warships would have them)
The problem is that 6" DP (or 5"/55) is no longer hand loadable (ie the shell is to heavy) this requires much more advanced loading technology (so not working in WW2) but if you can get it to work (HMS Tiger post war) then it will be devastatingly better than a 5" as its a much bigger and faster shell.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_6-50_mkN5.htm

It depends on your AU where the tech level is but you will have 5/38" or 6"/50 DP but unlikely both on the same ship IMO.

Alright then. Thanks for the info. Alrighty, I've got a rework in the works. It's 12,000 tons in mass and I can't get the natural speed more than 25 no matter what I do unless I want a god-damned behemoth of a light cruiser instead.

Well, been tinkering with the Springsharp hull-form a bit, so how is this?


Used a rounded stern and a normal bow, just played with some things like the stern overhang and the bow angle.